Talk:River Afan

Angling Club

Has the Afan Valley Angling Club changed its name to Afan Valley Angling Association? If not, I'll edit the article.

You are right - my mistake (of months ago). I have corrected it. Regards. Velela 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Afon Pelena - polluting collieries

This section refers to the pollution of the Pelena. It says it was caused by: "The principal collieries responsible were those located in Glyncorrwg and Aber/Blaengwynfi...". This doesn't make geographical sense in relation to the Pelena (check on a map) and is clearly wrong. It may be a reference to pollution of the river Afan, but it is in the wrong place. Unless it is amended or someone else has any relevant comments I will remove it. Huwbwici (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right . This is a product of an anonymous editor in August 2007 who changed my original correct answer to a totally wrong answer (as you note). Now corrected again.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   17:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Afon Pelena

My memory and all references refer to PELENNA with two N's, not PELENA with one. I don't think they are Welsh and English versions, I think there is just one version with 2 N's. Does anyone know any different? Otherwise, this should be changed. Huwbwici (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this IS one of those English/ Welsh variants - although we had got it wrong in the article (now corrected). The Ordnance Survey uses River Pelena and Afon Pelenna. As this is the English Wikipedia I guess we should standardise on River Pelena as it is commonly called that along the Afan valley and in Port Talbot.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Blaen Pell lena 1694; Blaen Pylinny 1652; Blaen Palenna 1814; Blaen Pelenna c1960. This name appears to be Welsh 'pelan' (hillock, tump) in its plural form 'pelennau', local dialect 'pelenna' (cf. Goetra for Goetre, Brynna for Bryniau etc.) giving a poss. meaning of a river that flows through hillocks. [Deric John. 15.3.2015.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.81.79 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Afon Ffrwdwyllt

"This water too was grossly polluted for many years, principally with cyanide emanating from blast-furnace cooling waters. This had the very visible impact of killing thousands of smolts—the young of sea-trout—returning to the sea. With recent improvements in emission control in the steel making plant, this problem has been abated."

This uncited statement,I believe is rubbish. It talks about Blast Furnace cooling waters polluting the river with cyanide , but then goes on to talk about emission improvements at the steel plant. What evidence is there that smolts were killed by cyanide anyway. I believe this part of the paragraph should be deleted. Canol (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably difficult to find good references for this but I can attest to the truth of the statement as probably can many surviving members of the Afan Angling Association who helped with the smolt surveys that were undertaken and in monitoring the regretfully many smolt kills. The connection between cyanide and emissions control is very simple. Prior to good emissions control practices blast furnace gas quenching waters were released straight back into Port Talbot docks through which ran the Ffrwdwyllt. These waters contain ammonia, cyanide and many other products of combustion and coal carbonisation. With improved controls these waters were re-directed to water treatment facilities and not discharged to the environment. For the record, I was a senior environmental scientist with Welsh Water who were, at the time, the environmental regulators for rivers in Wales. It concerns me that you have formed a view that this rubbish when there is plenty of evidence of the impacts of blast-furnace waters and their potential, to pollute, the presence of the blast-furnaces near the Ffrwdwyllt is not in doubt, British Steel (the then operators) never denied that they made the releases (which were not illegal at the time because of a quirk in the law) yet you have formed a contrary view. It concerns me that there is sometimes a wish to white-wash the past, but white-washing doesn't make it more true.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your possibly very valid comments, however a Steel Plant, as stated in the article, is not a Blast Furnace which produces iron. I fail to see how the Steel Plant at Port Talbot has anything to do with the waters of the river Ffrwdwyllt, anyway, when do you think that Blast furnace cooling waters were released to the docks. My understanding is that only Power Station and Power Plant cooling waters were released to the freshwater docks and these only as secondary coolants.

These so called facts need to be substantiated or they could be libelous. I still maintain this part of the paragraph should be deleted until the causal link substantiated. Canol (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the words steel works to iron works in the relevant para for greater clarity. Up until the late 1970, all the waste waters from blast furnaces 1, 2 and 3 ran directly into the docks and hence the Ffrwdwyllt. The docks also provided the cooling water for the power station although by the 1970s, the clean water feed for water supply at the works came from Eglwys Nunydd via the water treatment plant built to supply the rolling mills. There is of course no question of libel here. The discharges were not illegal (as noted above) and were acknowledged by British Steel management  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   06:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets get an agreed and encyclopedic form of words then. I have deleted the offending sentences until we can agree a form of words. I believe the smolts were predominantly killed in the Afan by industrial pollution from old industries in the Afan valley and above not the Frwdwyllt. As you correctly point out the Frwdwyllt feeds the docks not the Afan. Indeed the Afan dock feeder always flows too the docks not away from it. The drain from the docks is over the sluices at the lock gates. Waters from the Afan and Frwd' dont mix in the Afan, only in the docks or the sea. Do you have any documentary evidence that the docks water was polluted by cyanide up until the 1980s. Canol (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Ffrwdwyllt flow mixes with part of the Afan flow in the docks and smolts travelling down the Afan got trapped in the docks and were exposed to the waste waters from the blast furnaces. Do I have evidence for that ? Well yes I now do courtesy of the Environment Agency and its retention of the old NRA data and the data from the previous Glamorgan River Division. Once I can get it into a form suitable for Wikipedia I will upload it. I don't invent facts but I do regret the behaviour of editors who delete first and ask questions later. As for old industries in the Afan valley, can you point to any ? By the 1970's the collieries were mostly closed and, except for sewage, the Afan was remarkably clean except of course for the iron rich waters of the Pelena.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I am sorry that you take offence at my removal of your edit. I only remove if the edit is POV, or uncited, or libelous. This had the potential for all three. I did ask in the discussion page if we could agree a form of words, this was so that we could agree rather than snipe at each other. Now, as regards the docks, I stand by what I said. The Afan water flows into the docks not vice versa, as this article is about the Afan and not the docks, pollution in the docks is irrelevant unless it flowed into the Afan. Maybe we should include your paragraph in a docks article if it can be cited, I'm still uneasy about it ever being legal to discharge cyanide to rivers or docks, the original pollution laws go a long way back. I hope you agree it obviously needs more work finding citations before we put it back. Canol (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As you note the Afan flows into the docks and out again through the dock gates. I have never written anything to the contrary. The docks are thus part of the course of the Afan and the confluence with the Ffwrdwyllt is actually within the docks. As to the pollution laws, which one would you like me to cite ? The River (prevention of Pollution) acts 1951 - 1961 which were in force at the time I was discussing - well yes, they would have proscribed the discharge of cyanide unless such discharge was covered by a Consent to Discharge issued by The Welsh National Water Development Authority or any of its predecessors, the Glamorgan River Authority or the Glamorgan River Board. However if it had a prescriptive right enshrined in law by some private piece of legislation or if the discharge in question was a type specifically exempted by the 51-61 Acts then no offence would be committed. It can be surprising to wade through the appendices to these acts to discover what is exempt and why, for example, Coal mines continued discharging their waste uncontrolled until 1974. For the record I do know the answer to all these questions , however my enthusiasm for finding reliable sources is fast diminishing and, as the sources will be in the public domain, you are welcome to try and find them.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I said the Afan flows into the docks. I said Afan water flows into the docks, there is a difference. The Afan clearly flows directly to the sea. The link to the Docks is an abstraction from the river, not the river. I am certain that there are abstraction licenses for the Afan water that leaves the Afan here. Can we agree to leave the article as it is until either of us gets the inclination to produce citations. Thank you also for conceding that any cyanide discharge, whenever made, would have been illegal under the acts you quote, unless there was specific exemption, or private legislation to allow cyanide discharge. Canol (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)